Bernie Sanders Wants to Confiscate our guns.

And other knee-jerk reactions to the New Zealand mosque shooting because knee-jerk reactions are always the wisest reaction:

Townhall: Bernie Sanders "more gun laws; go after the NRA."

[Following New Zealand's ban on all military-style semi-automatic weapons] Democrat presidential candidate and socialist Bernie Sanders endorsed the move right away and said it needs to happen in the United States. He wants to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights overnight.

The Independent: Sanders, "This is what real action looks like."

“This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like,” [said Sanders]  on Twitter. “We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.”

Conservative Review: NZ's knee-jerk gun ban is EXACTLY why we have the Second Amendment.

That’s just one thing that’s so great about having a Constitution that’s hard to change by design and has language specifically protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Every human being is born with the intrinsic right to defend themselves. Period. Our Founders knew this and wisely put a backstop in place that keeps reactionary impulses from trampling over that right.

Washington Examiner: Democrat's celebrating New Zealand gun ban exposes the Left's authoritarian impulses.

Democrats cheered the actions of the government of New Zealand. Even as liberals often insist that nobody is talking about taking away guns, many applauded the decision of a government to quickly confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens without any debate or legal arguments.

Breitbart: Bernie Sanders calls for NZ style gun ban in U.S. 

...the DOJ released a study showing handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals. The study looked at roughly 300,000 federal and state inmates, finding that 18 percent of them used handguns in the commission of their crimes while 1.4 percent used rifles of any kind. The percentage of “assault weapons” used would have necessarily been even lower than 1.4.

But Sanders and other Democrats want to ban commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles under the guise of keeping us safe.

The Guardian via MSN by Lois Beckett:  25 years of inaction in U.S. gun laws. (Lois be smokin' some potent nugs):

In the US, where conservative politicians have blocked even moderate gun control for 25 years, New Zealand’s swift action was greeted as a powerful inspiration – and a reminder of how far behind the country is.

Freedom Outpost: 50 Years of Federal Gun Tyranny.

One of the biggest infringements upon the rights of the people regarding arms is the 1968 Gun Control Act.  It's been fifty years since that unconstitutional piece of legislation was foisted upon the American people and we are still under its tyranny.

ATF: A 243-page pdf of U.S. Federal Firearms Regulations; (2005 edition).

Sanders/Gun Confiscation HT: Blazing Cat Fur

H.R. 8 advances with five Republicans voting with Dems.

Washington Times: Five Repubs join Dems in useless gun law.

The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill, H.R. 8, that would mandate background checks for all firearms’ sales — and five Republicans signed on as cosponsors.

If the point of the bill is to stop criminal acts of gun violence, it’s largely useless. If the point, however, is to erode Second Amendment rights under a cloak of halting gun violence — well then, we have a winner.
[.]
Five — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania; Peter King from New York; Brian Mast of Florida; Chris Smith of New Jersey; and Fred Upton of Michigan — voted with Democrats to advance the measure.

Why?

Why indeed.

The AMA Association: Physicians united join Dems in gun control legislation.

AMA Board of Trustees Chair Jack Resneck Jr., MD, cited polls that said most Americans—even gun owners and National Rifle Association members—support background checks.
[.]
Dr. Resneck also noted the AMA’s position that firearm violence is a public health issue. He summarized AMA policies adopted in recent years that call for background checks, a ban on assault weapons, and other commonsense measures that are not intended to infringe on citizens’ Second Amendment rights but meant to keep guns out of the hands of those who would cause harm.

"To keep guns out of the hands of those who would cause harm." Wouldn't that be describing "criminals" or those with a "criminal" intent? And H.R. 8 keeps guns out of their hands how?

From the "Proudly Serving the 10th District of New York", Congressman Jerry Nadler.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening statement for the markup of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019:
[.]
"The bill would, therefore, extend the current federal background check requirement—which applies now only to licensed gun dealers—and require virtually all transactions to undergo a background check."

Nationwide firearms registration legislation looms.

KTRH Houston: Legislation targets nationwide firearms registration.

Last month, House Democrats introduced the legislation, dubbed H.R. 8, in honor of the eighth anniversary of the January 8, 2011, attack on Gabby Gifford.

Now, this week, if legislation passes, a private gun sale would first need government permission.

Houston attorney Edwin Walker explained the US Constitution states that Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce, not private transactions between private individuals.
[.]
Gun laws expert Alan Korwin said Democrats want to register gun owners instead of stopping violent criminals.

"HR 8 is aimed at innocent Americans, instead of at criminals. And, this is something Democrats have been doing for a while," said Korwin.

He said from last week's Congressional hearings, the left knows HR 8 won't work without a registration list of all gun owners.

"They want to register gun owners, instead of do something to stop violent criminals because they're afraid of people who own guns, like most Texans," said Korwin.

Breitbart:  House Dems will vote to criminalize private gun sales.

H.R. 8 would outlaw the private gun sales Americans have enjoyed since December 15, 1791, the date on which the Second Amendment was ratified.
[.]
...Democrats are rushing this legislation to the House floor for a vote

Contact your Representative, contact them and let them know you are against H.R. 8.

Please get the word out and share the info on H.R. 8. Copy and use the URLS here, copy/paste the text. Use it, you don't have to link here, I don't care about any of that. What's important is that this bill is defeated. Hopefully by a sizable margin.

Supporters of the Second Amendment can't allow The Left any degree of success in their continual attempts of chipping away at the Second Amendment.

This also calls for DEMOCRATS TO GET INVOLVED. Yes, all you lifelong Dems, who believe in the Second Amendment - who also happen to hunt and who always vote Democrat (why - - - I'll never grasp) - YOU need to contact the DEMOCRAT you voted for and let them know you are against H.R. 8.

If you're wondering if you're one of those Democrats, let this guide you: You live, for example, in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, the Dakotas, Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Michigan, New Mexico etc.; you claim to support the Second Amendment; you are avid hunters or sport shooters, and, for some reason, when elections roll around, you vote for the candidate with the " D " behind their name. If you think you fall into this description, you probably do - and you need to contact your Rep ASAP.

Cornell Law:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

North Jersey.com/USA MacPaper: Background check bill is useless.

[A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report from the Department of Justice] released in January of 2019, [finds] that the overwhelming majority of people convicted of gun-related crimes obtained those guns by stealing them, buying them on the black market, or through a straw purchase (where someone with a clean record buys a gun for a criminal). H.R. 8 does nothing to prevent any of those crimes.
[.]
What [H.R. 8] will do is outlaw a perfectly legal activity, make it more difficult for honest people to protect themselves and their loved ones, and have no impact on crime.

There is going to be enormous pressure on all the Reps to support H.R. 8. "Because of Gabby Giffords." Of which, her being shot, H.R. 8 would not have prevented.

FIND your Rep. CONTACT them. Thank you.

Gun Owner Registration Hearing on Wednesday; Washington Sheriffs won't enforce gun laws pending decision of constitutionality.

2nd Amendment Daily News reports: HR 8 hearing tomorrow.

Washington, DC — House Judiciary Committee Chairman, anti-gun Democrat Jerrold Nadler, has called for a “mark up” hearing on House Bill 8, National Gun Owner Registration tomorrow in Washington, DC.

A “mark up” hearing is where legislators from the committee in which the bill is assigned make changes [sic] and adjustments to a bill before voting on a final version and sending it on to the floor of the House.
[.]
H.R. 8 would turn gun owners into felons who transfer a firearm without first asking permission from the government.

Universal background checks will make FELONS out of gun owners who transfer a firearm without first obtaining government permission!

More on HR 8 at The War On Guns.

At Congress.gov: H.R. 8.

At Standing By: - Dems pushing for gun confiscation in Virginia and The Importance of the Second Amendment.

KING 5 News: Some Washington sheriffs won't enforce new gun laws.

Sheriffs in a dozen Washington counties say they won't enforce the state's sweeping new restrictions on semi-automatic rifles until the courts decide whether they are constitutional.
[.]
"I swore an oath to defend our citizens and their constitutionally protected rights," Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones said. "I do not believe the popular vote overrules that."
[.]
"The political grandstanding is disheartening," said Renee Hopkins, chief executive of the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which pushed the initiative.

No, the political grandstanding is in thinking a measure, or law, should be applied upon the immediate questioning of the Constitutionality and where its finality has not yet been decided. And, it doesn't hurt that the Grant County Sheriff is named Tom Jones.

Ammo Land: More coverage on Kentucky Sheriff John Kirk telling residents, "lock your doors. Load your guns."

Connecticut proposes 50% Tax on Ammunition

Breitbart: Jillian Gilchrest, DEM-CT, introduces 50 Percent Tax on Ammo.

Connecticut State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest (D-13th) is pushing a 50 percent tax on ammunition purchases in her state.

Gilchrest is willing to exempt police and military personnel from the impost, but homeowners worried about defending their lives and those of their families get no such break.

In fact, Gilchrest questions how much ammunition a homeowner needs to carry out a viable defense. She tweeted: “I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one’s home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?”

Gilchrest's Tweet:

I’ve introduced HB 5700, a 50% tax increase on ammunition. It doesn’t apply to military or law enforcement. I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one's home… but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that? #gunsense #enough pic.twitter.com/NZjkWBrpjC

    — Jillian Gilchrest (@Jilchrest) February 4, 2019

Image: Weapons Man

No Wall? How about a "Palisade"?

Instead, we could call the 'wall' a curb.

Or, Palisade...that sounds nice and friendly.

I noticed, that at least in June 2013, The Taliban Office in Doha, Qatar (image below and link from Stars and Stripes) appears to have both barriers protectionary concrete deterrents and a wall fence barricade barrier blockade nice palisade.

The Taliban office in Doha, Qatar, is seen on June 18, 2013.
Via Stars and Stripes; Image: OSAMA FAISAL/AP

Parkland School Security Footage on 20 Minute Delay

[Average reading time less links: 3min 30sec]

Why on earth would there be a 20 minute delay...20 minutes!...as police watched surveillance camera footage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School?

From WTBK, LaCrosse News 8000:

When officers arrived on the scene of the shooting, he said, they wanted to gain access to the security footage to learn what happened and where the perpetrator could be.

But last Wednesday the footage was rewound, [Coral Springs Police Chief Tony] Pustizzi told reporters. At some point, there was a miscommunication and officers believed they were watching real-time footage.

"The issue was more of a communications failure on who was reviewing the tape, letting our guys know that it was a 20-minute delay in what they were reviewing," Pustizzi said.
[.]
The Broward County School district said in a statement that its security system footage could be reviewed in both real-time or be rewound to see events that were previously recorded.

"During the immediate response to the event, the system was being viewed in real-time and the recorded footage was being viewed to retrace the actions of the shooter," the statement said, adding that the district no longer had access to the footage or the server it was stored on because investigating authorities have it.
[.]
[Coral Springs Police Capt. Brad McKeone said,] " I expected to be in a gunbattle. "

While watching the footage, Captain McKeone concludes he expected to be in "a gunbattle" ... and then, at some point, realized the footage they are viewing is delayed by 20 minutes? Am I (we) understanding this correctly? If so, something is very strange here.

"... the district no longer had access to the footage or the server it was stored on because investigating authorities have it." - Well, we'll never know the truth now.

People at Reddit are saying  Broward Sheriff Scott Israel ignored 3 dozen calls to Nikolas Cruz’s home.

Yeah, I know..."Dave, you don't believe stuff on Reddit, do you?" No more or less than I believe anyone knew, or didn't know, that the surveillance footage was delayed by 20 minutes. Or that I know, or don't know - for certain - if there was a second shooter at Mandalay Convention Center.

Besides, it's not only Reddit.

It's unclear if, prior to the shootings, the surveillance footage was on a 20 minute delay, but if so, the is no reasonable explanation for this.

Further, if police viewing the surveillance camera footage thought that they were watching footage in "real time", but the footage they were viewing had been rewound, who rewound it, when and why?

Via: picclick.com

In related news, school resource officer Scot Peterson has resigned and retired. From WPTV - West Palm Beach:

Peterson took a position but "never went in" as the onslaught occurred, citing security footage.
[.]
Peterson was "absolutely on campus" he was armed he was in uniform during the shooting.
[.]
"But what I saw was a deputy arrive at the west side of Building 12, take up a position, and he never went in," the sheriff said.

Asked what Peterson should have done the sheriff said: "Went in, addressed the killer. Killed the killer."

Are we to understand, then, that Officer Peterson was unsure of what action to take because of either or both real-time and/or delayed security footage? Delayed or not, isn't that the task of law enforcement in a situation like this - to confront the active shooter(s)?

Numerous reports abound  about awkward encounters with Mr. Cruz long before February. The FBI admits they failed to investigate Cruz. 

The 1990 Crime Control Act, (introduced by Democrat Joe Biden) and yes, I know, signed by President George H.W. Bush (I've made no secret of my dislike of his politics), which designates schools as "Gun Free Zones" has simply identified easy targets for those who want to inflict carnage on defenseless people.

And the First National Bank of Omaha decided to end its relationship of their NRA-affiliated bank cards.

Well, I can think of at least two things that will happen with that last item.

1) Customers of the First National Bank of Omaha who are NRA members will be closing their accounts there and moving to a NRA-friendly bank, and;

2) Legal Gun sales by law-abiding citizens will again be on the upswing. And I fully support that.

The Blame Game here is wide open and I'm not pointing fingers at any specific person(s) or incidents, although I think reasonable people can conclude and agree there was at least one shooter and we know his name. But blaming the NRA is psychological displacement.

Joyless Behar Remains Clueless

Joyless Behar

( Average reading time 5 minutes; less links and video. )

A few words regarding the below clip from "The View".

The "View" excerpts and clip are from the Friday, February 16, 2018 program. In the segment, the subject is the Parkland Florida tragedy and the inevitable conversation on gun-control, mostly from Joyless Behar and Sunny Hostin, who display a fundamental lack of knowledge on what they speak. (You're not surprised by this, though).

They'll never read or be made aware of this post on my limitedly viewed blog, but if Joyless and Sunny think it's easy to legally acquire a handgun or longarm (aka long-gun), then I challenge them to experience the process of legally obtaining one, especially any type of handgun, revolver, semi, or other.  Please Mss's Behar and Hostin - undertake the process of legally purchasing a gun, especially a handgun. Afterwards, let us know if it was EASY.

Neither Joyless or Sunny will do this - I fear they would find truths that drastically conflict with their anti-gun rhetoric and incorrect and pre-formulated, sacredly-held beliefs.  Oh, and one big deterrent for Joyless to actually experience the gun-purchasing process is that she'll have to provide her age and date of birth; something she probably avoids at all cost.

And pretending for a moment that the Second Amendment and hunting have anything to do with each other, which they don't, do note (I duplicated it a few times) when Sunny Hostin physically displays a "rat-a-tat-tat" semi-circle firing "spray" approach - implying this firing pattern is adapted or used in hunting. No true, respectable hunter (of which 99.99999% are) hunts in this manner. On a battlefield, armed and fighting for your life, yes, you may indeed fire off a sequence of shots in a pattern she demonstrates. Applying her method to hunting is abhorred by legitimate, respectful hunters.

Yes, I'm sure somewhere, some time, some rogue or inexperienced hunter, or a poacher, fired off a few rounds attempting to kill prey like that, but there is always a tiny fraction in anything that abuse, misuse and/or deliberately ignore the sportsmanship of  [ fill in the blank ]. To be redundant, no respectable hunter would ever hunt, or fire off a series of shots, as "demonstrated" by Ms. Hostin.  It's extremely dangerous to others in your hunting party and to anyone else in the area, hunting or not. Experienced hunters know that, at most - you have two shots to fell your prey. Not "Tommy-Gun-rat-a-tat-tat" style. Ms. Hostin has seen too many gangsta movies.

Regarding Ms. Hostin's comment of why don't hunters use a shotgun; many hunters do use a shotgun. The selection of shotgun or rifle and gauge or caliber depends on what it is one is hunting and its size.  I know deer hunters who use a .12 gauge (with a slug) for deer. Other, more powerful rifles are often preferred because the IDEA IS to fell and kill the prey as quickly and painlessly as possible. No respectable hunter wants to see their prey suffer. A clean "kill" shot is always preferred - always.  Why? If the bullet strikes a larger animal, a deer, or an elk, hitting it in its hind-quarters, it often continues running or limping  along, bleeding out and suffering. A quick kill helps in preserving the flesh from trauma that comes from suffering. The more prolonged the dying process, the more the tissue damage. The more tissue damage, the higher degree of trauma of edible meat, rendering it "tough" as opposed to smooth and "steak"-y.  I don't believe in hunting any animal that you do not plan to eat, or at least have processed and give to others to eat. I don't believe in trophy hunting. Seriously...you need the head of a tiger, elephant or boar hanging on the wall?  Now, if you mount a deer head with a 26-point antler-rack that you killed and consumed, I have no issue with that. Or, the taxidermy of animal or fish, again, as long as it is used as food.

I needed to move on with publishing a couple (rather easy) updates on Tech and one on News after publishing the post about my late brother. I didn't plan on updating anything for a while after the two updates following that one. But I realized that it is exactly one year today that I spent the day with my late brother who had ordered a S&W 9mm which had arrived.  I rode along and we spent that afternoon at a gun shop. His transaction took about twenty minutes, all paperwork previously approved. We spent about three hours looking at other merchandise and my brother spoke with every customer and employee there. Slightly unusual because he was rather reserved. I kept thinking, he doesn't know these people, and he's carrying on lengthy conversations with all of them - when are we going to get out of here? Those moments meant a lot to me at the time, but I wanted to get the heck out, but he kept striking up one new conversation with one person and then another. And then it became fun to watch and see who he would next talk to and about what. So today I hold those moments even more significant and, in a way, appropriate for an update today, on this subject.

Joyless also, knowingly or unknowingly (my money is on "unknowingly") attempts to use the annual amount of U.S. gun sales as the dollar amount of political contributions from the NRA as representing the dollar amount  used as lobbying by the National Rifle Associate (NRA.org). She is, of course, wrong and grossly off-point.  What else have we come to expect from Joyless? Joyless also states, "some of these guys..." [ I'm interpreting her words as "politicians receiving NRA money" ],  "...get $3,000.00."  Somehow, a $3 Grand campaign donation is not that much of an amount considering the large dollars of campaign contributions from other organizations.

[Spelling error fixed 2/20/2018]

Is this the New Glock?

Is this the new Glock 17M : The Firearm Blog:

... someone finally got their new Glock 17M duty gun in from Glock! I am inclined to believe that it is a genuine photo because our source is an officer with the Indianapolis Metro Police Department, one of the first agencies to receive the new guns. The officer that this 17M belongs to is one of the first to get the new Glock[.]

 Hit the link for the details.

Additional info, Soldier Systems.

Check out more leaked 17M photos HERE,  at Guns.com. Definitely worth the time.

Joy Behar and Gun Silencers

Joy Behar, always willing to say things she knows nothing about.

Some may feel that Joy Behar of the internationally renowned think-tank, "The View", is too easy a target to mock because every time she speaks she displays having no knowledge of the subject she is discussing. And the degree of stupidity of her words is the gold standard of the gold standard of gold standards. Know, for a fact, that if Behar is talking, something stupid is being said and with no research on her part to, in advance, learn anything about whatever she's jabbering on about.

She does no research. I guess it's true, you can't teach old dogs new tricks. Here, have a doggie treat, Joy, and go lie down.

Behar has seen too many "Matt Helm" and "James Bond"  movies where a character removes from their inside suit pocket a sleek, cylindrical tube that is a "silencer" and screwing it into the gun barrel, thus being able to assassinate at will without making a sound.

The place: "The View."

The date:  on or about January 25, 2017. 

The subject: gun "silencers".

The person: Internationally renowned Firearms Expert:  Joy Behar.

Why write when you can watch it and hear it from The Horse's mouth?

The Left's Anti-Gun Obsession

The preponderance of gun silencers is quite severe, as Behar states. I can speak from experience.

I can barely get one foot out of my front door before being approached by a stranger selling "silencers" - and guns - from their vehicle...usually an unmarked white van. And who can possibly pass up bargains like this?

I phoned "Bill's Gun Shop",  in Minneapolis. They've been around for decades and are a highly respected gun shop

I discussed "silencers" with a very knowledgeable and helpful gentleman who was kind enough to spend a few minutes with me on the telephone..  I wasn't sure if he wanted me to use his name or not, so I'll error on the side of not using it.  And while I have been a customer at Bill's Gun Shop, I have no vested interest in Bill's Gun Shop nor am I receiving any type of compensation in mentioning Bill's Gun Shop.

What you see below is actually a suppressor, not silencer. It suppresses sound.  The science behind suppressors is reducing the sound of a gun shot. It is not possible to completely silence the sound.

The sound of the the gun shot usually breaks the sound barrier; provided the caliber is strong enough to do that.  Your higher caliber handguns - a 9 millimeter, the .45's, the .357's - and most rifles - break the sound barrier.  The suppressor helps reduce this sound.

Suppressors help in the protection of hearing and also help in containing the gases that are created by firing the gun. 

Suppressors help enormously in hearing protection. Updated technology and design enables a reduction in recoil . Live Outdoors.com:

These new suppressors, on the other hand, allow the gasses to continue traveling, albeit a lot slower because of the twists and turns they take before they leave the gun. The inside has been likened to a jet engine, which helps to lower bolt velocity to an immeasurable amount. The result is a reduction in the pressure, blow-back and even recoil.

You can search and find many sites that state suppressors do not reduce recoil, but I have to believe the above at Live Outdoors and Accurate Shooter:

If you take an accurate bolt-action rifle in .260 Remington or .308 Winchester and fit a suppressor, the recoil will be noticeably reduced[.]

Desert Eagle, .50 Caliber

Obtaining a Suppressor

The gentleman at "Bill's Gun Shop" said that if you seek to legally obtain a suppressor, you will file paperwork with Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and an FBI background check will be done.

The current timeframe in applying and obtaining, or being denied, a Suppressor Purchase Permit is eight to twelve months nationwide.

Suppressors are part of The Hearing Protection Act, and the 2017 Congress will have to address it. Guns.com:

The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act was delivered by GOP sponsors U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Rep. John Carter of Texas and aims to deregulate suppressors as a safety measure to help promote their use in protecting hearing.

Behar did get one thing right - it had to be by accident. Donald Trump, Jr. does indeed favor lessening the restrictions on purchasing suppressors.The Sacramento Bee:

Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter who credits his Czech grandfather with getting him interested in the outdoors, headed up his father’s Second Amendment Coalition advisory group and counts himself a huge fan of [making the purchase of suppressors — more commonly known as silencers — easier and cheaper in the United States.]

It's All about loss of Hearing

Now, before all the anti-gun crazies take a breath, claiming that suppressors have nothing to do with hearing, or that there are other ways to deal with the sound of a gun firing, consider the following, from the same SacBee link above:

[Suppressors] may reduce the noise of a gunshot by an average of 20 to 35 decibels – similar to wearing earmuffs or earplugs – but the sound can still be as loud as a jackhammer, according to multiple studies.

At a [demonstration] at the NRA’s small private gun range in Fairfax, Virginia, [.] observers wore both earplugs and earmuffs as they watched an employee fire rounds from four weapons – an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22 LR and a 9mm handgun – with and without a silencer attached. Even with two layers of hearing protection, the sounds were loud.

Again, from the same SacBee link. the anti-Hearing Protection Act rears its ugly head:

“This legislation is nothing more than a transparent giveaway to the gun industry to help sell more silencers and increase profits,” said Chelsea Parsons, vice president, guns and crime policy, for the left-leaning Center for American .

Of course The Left is against The Hearing Protection Act...because it has to do with guns. If The Hearing Protection Act had to do with limiting the noise output of jackhammers, they'd be supporting it in droves.

From Bearing Arms:

A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder.

HK 9mm

For thousands of people around the world, Competitive Shooting is a sport. Suppressors would certainly help protect not only their hearing, but the hearing of spectators.

Suppressors do not muffle or cover  100% of the sound of shooting a gun. Nothing does. Well, it would be interesting to search and learn if a deaf person can sense a sound of the firing of a gun.

The irony of all of this is that you can make your own "silencer" at home. It doesn't take a whole lot of ingenuity, material or skill. I'm not going to provide instructions how to make one. But if you really want to make one, you can.

Suppressors are no different than gun-control. If someone (say, with a criminal record) wants to obtain a gun badly enough, they will - and they'll likely obtain it illegally. If someone wants a suppressor badly enough...they will obtain one. Or make their own.

It is not the law-abiding, permit-holding, conceal and carry citizen anyone needs to fear. Neither is it that same citizen with a suppressor that anyone need fear.

Fear only The Liberals.

Only Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin are authorized in using silencers 24/7 worldwide, because they are both way cooler than Helm or Bond.

Additional Reading:
CNN: Gun Silencer Bill Could Mean Big Business for Industry. (wow, God forbid the gun industry make a profit.)
Breitbart: Doctors [Support] Firearm Suppressor to Fight Hearing Loss
America's First Freedom: Doctors Praise Suppressors Dissed by Gun Controllers

 - - -
Revised/grammar 7/2/2017